Chatham's breakdown of NE/GB game

Another excellent piece by Matt Chatham over at FootballByFootball:

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/patriots-packers-what-we-learned

rlcarr said:

Another excellent piece by Matt Chatham over at FootballByFootball:

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/patriots-packers-what-we-learned

Click to expand...

That's great stuff. Very interesting comments about how the Pats won't think twice about the pass rush.

Interesting points about the officiating, too. I agree.

I don't necessarily agree with the Pats not feeding Blount, though. Still came down to execution of the plays called.

I wish that more websites would disable comments because just a glance at them just makes me want to vomit.

Apart from that I agree with most of what Chatham says. I wish he would do a Bedard-like review of some plays. At least he has experience playing the game under Belichick, so this should give a nice perspective.

Good stuff. I love the breakdown of the double move on Ryan, and how different that play could have been if it was a 3rd and 8 versus a 3rd and 2. Just adds more to what I have to consider when making an armchair evaluation of a particular player.

Chatham is one of the rare analysts that I immediately assume any conflicting opinions I had were wrong. Looking forward to reading.

Good stuff. Thanks for the link.

The decision to bring fewer people and to not rush upfield was tactical, and brought on in large part by Rodgers' 2nd and 18 scramble in the first quarter where he gained 17 yards. Two Patriots rushed aggressively up the field beyond Rodgers in the pocket, and then weren't able to retrace and recover. With Chandler Jones out and Dominique Easley on a limited rep count after returning from injury, they weren't able to power the edges and close the pocket around Rodgers. Edge rushing upfield proved unwise, so they stuck to mirroring the pocket with all four defenders...probably frustrating to watch at home, but the correct football move based on the opponent and the personnel they were working with.

Click to expand...

Add back Jones and Easley at full strength, and the Pats can play this a bit differently.

In general, I agree with several of Chatham's conclusions:

- The Pats' O got too cute, and left a bunch of points and opportunities on the field. Doubt that will happen twice.
- The Packers won the "hidden game" that doesn't show up in the box score or stat sheet.
- A lot of the critical twists were arbitrary, or extremely close calls.

Oswlek said:

Chatham is one of the rare analysts that I immediately assume any conflicting opinions I had were wrong. Looking forward to reading.

Click to expand...

I think he's a smart analyst and obviously has some inside info on how they like to approach things down there. That said, he doesn't automatically override my opinion (same as Bedard. He's good but not some hidden genius), just usually gives me one or two more factors that I hadn't considered.

Thanks for the link. Excellent piece.

Surprisingly, New England substituted Blount out immediately after that run, opting instead for a Shane Vereen interior run on the next play. The critique here isn't to 'run more,' as would be a valid argument for other parts of the game, but rather to 'run smarter.'

Vereen is exceptional at what he does as an X-factor in the passing game and sub-running situations, but his interior run capability is far below that of the bigger Blount (and Jonas Gray for that matter). In this play, Vereen is contacted near the line of scrimmage, just as Blount was on the previous play. But Vereen is dropped immediately by a safety who Blount would have outweighed by 40+ pounds. The lost probable YAC is the difference in the conversion (below).

Click to expand...

On 30 snaps, Shane Vereen gave us 1 reception for 26 yards and 3 carries for 6 (net 32 yards, or 1 yard/snap). On 19 snaps, Blount gave us 58 yards (3 yards per snap). I will be curious to see if Josh keeps trotting out Vereen for those inside runs to nowhere.

Mack Herron said:

Thanks for the link. Excellent piece.

On 30 snaps, Shane Vereen gave us 1 reception for 26 yards and 3 carries for 6 (net 32 yards, or 1 yard/snap). On 19 snaps, Blount gave us 58 yards (3 yards per snap). I will be curious to see if Josh keeps trotting out Vereen for those inside runs to nowhere.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely fair. Vereen is someone the defense has to account for out of the backfield, which creates coverage gaps that might not have been there had Gray or Blount been in the backfield. His blocking and ability to flex outside is advantageous for audibling as well. The fact that he wasn't specifically targeted a lot doesn't mean he wasn't an asset.

All that said, I agree that NE outsmarted themselves a lot in this game.

I should also add that this was probably my favorite Chatham piece I've read to date.

Holy hell. Don't read the comments at the bottom if you are interested in retaining all your brain cells.

I wonder if somebody with more X/O experience can explain to me what Logan Ryan should have done "in an ideal world" against the double move that was described by Chatham.

Did he simply bite too hard on protecting the sticks on a third down ? Then again, if he doesn't do it and it is not a double move and GB gets a first down out of it we will hear a very similar criticism.. that he could not defend Adams and gave up a first down.

mayoclinic said:

Good stuff. Thanks for the link.
Add back Jones and Easley at full strength, and the Pats can play this a bit differently.

Click to expand...

The game was so close that I think even a 100% healthy Arrington would have been enough.

I don't think we can simply discount the production that Vereen has had running the ball based on the GB game and while I really like Chatham's analysis, suggesting the Pats got too cute lacks depth.

This was early in the game and Vereen offers a skill in the passing game that surely defenses recognize and have to account for in their own formation and responsibilities. To say that Vereen got stopped for nothing while Blount ran for 6 the previous play and therefore let Blount carry the ball and not Vereen implies that Blount will always run for positive yards which isn't the case.

On this particular, I was thinking play action since the down and distance (2nd and 4) was ideal. The fact they ran it doesn't make the play call poor or too cute, it simply means they didn't execute that particular play.

In fact, if memory serves, Blount was in the very next play and got stopped for no gain and on came the punt team. That was 3 straight runs and while I wouldn't say they gave up on the run, this wasn't like Indi where they started running well right from the get go and therefore its easy to stay with it.

I particularly liked his discussion of the pick rule. Interesting ideas, well illustrated and expressed.

Oswlek said:

That's not entirely fair. Vereen is someone the defense has to account for out of the backfield, which creates coverage gaps that might not have been there had Gray or Blount been in the backfield. His blocking and ability to flex outside is advantageous for audibling as well. The fact that he wasn't specifically targeted a lot doesn't mean he wasn't an asset.

All that said, I agree that NE outsmarted themselves a lot in this game.

I should also add that this was probably my favorite Chatham piece I've read to date.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that the defense has to account for Vereen? Or that he has any special blocking skills? I don't see it (though I did see him whif badly Sunday). Don't get me wrong, Vereen is not bad, but he is no Kevin Faulk. This is a contract year for him and I think they have already given his locker to James White. I think it is clear the offense is more efficient with Blount instead of Vereen (look at the TD drives), and I think we would be better with more of one and less of the other.

luuked said:

I wonder if somebody with more X/O experience can explain to me what Logan Ryan should have done "in an ideal world" against the double move that was described by Chatham.

Click to expand...

He should "GTFB". Giving up first down is a lot better than giving up a touchdown.

I agree with Chatham that the utilization of the running game was a bit of a missed opportunity... to an extent. What was more illuminating was YAC as being one of the "little things" that turned out to be a significant factor in the outcome of the game.

Hypothetically speaking, had the Patriots featured YAC-friendly running backs like Blount/Gray more prominently, would this have helped with the play-action bread-and-butter plays the team loves to run be more effective and productive?

hwc said:

He should "GTFB". Giving up first down is a lot better than giving up a touchdown.

Click to expand...

Except the ball was not out yet when he turned his back to Rodgers and follows Adams along towards the sticks.

So you are saying he should have tried to stay on top of Adams?

Looking at the play in the all22 footage it looks like he was simply not quick enough at the beginning of the play and already had lost the match up long before the double move.

But my question remains.. how do you defend as CB against a double move in a situation like that? You essentially give up on the first down?

As reiss pointed out today, the 2nd drive of the game down 6-0, we came out pass ,pass,pass.. thenin the 3rd Q , we come with a pass play to start, get a holding call and then are forced to pass.
I dont know if the running game wouldve made a difference or not but the lack of it put a lot on our oline. They shouldve pushed the run game especially after how bolden ran.
Damn, more I think of this, more I see missed chances.

luuked said:

Except the ball was not out yet when he turned his back to Rodgers and follows Adams along towards the sticks.

So you are saying he should have tried to stay on top of Adams?

Looking at the play in the all22 footage it looks like he was simply not quick enough at the beginning of the play and already had lost the match up long before the double move.

But my question remains.. how do you defend as CB against a double move in a situation like that? You essentially give up on the first down?

Click to expand...

Rodney on WEEI said that he peeked in the backfield on 3rd and 2 and that split second ended in a disaster.